ownership is a concept in dire need of revision
And the more meta question is whether the creators' rights should even extend to that realm. Can you specify in a license "This text must not be read by students in the context of an educational course" (which is arguably the closest analogue to AI training)? If that's not possible, then where do we draw the line between tools-assisted learning by humans and human tools learning on their own? You can arrive at answers, but it seems to me like there are many possible reasonable interpretations.
It would be more accurate to compare those students with the corporate interests involved in AI training, not the model's use of the content.
Can we all legally pirate educational books since it's for self training and producing transformative outputs? Can I consume all media (books, movies, music) the same way, and call it fair use? Also for software?
The debate is about content that is generally legally obtained, but might come with certain restrictions. Where restrictions is a broad term and might also just come in the form of a copyleft license, eg. My main point was that in many situations, eg involving open source licenses, it's really not clear from the terms what the creator's intent regarding AI training was. And the broader question is whether training is fair use, or something else, maybe even a new legal concept that would have to be established. Or, what's the difference between art students going to the museum to be inspired, and Dall-E 'looking' at public domain images?
Regarding your point, I wonder how different is it to break the "terms of use" for fair right, vs breaking the "terms of obtaining" alltogether. They both are about jumping over owner's will, who has the full rights of the work.
I very much look forward to see how the ethics and law around these issues evolve.
Otherwise any deluded fool with extreme views on copyright could claim ownership way beyond that which the law currently offers.
You don't mind if I borrow your car do you?
And your house?
Let's not quibble about the particulars of me ever giving them back.
GP did not limit the scope of their opinion on ownership to IP.
As I understand so far the main reason to seek a revision of the concept of ownership is exactly due to the existence (enabled by internet technology) of digital assets.
copy-pasting is HOW computers work. copy-pasting does not do well in society ruled by the exclusivity-mindset inherent to marketplaces (and their societies) of tangible assets
I agree with you that digital "asset" ownership is new, unexplored territory for humans.
We've never been able to separate the content from the distribution medium before now, and we're struggling to recreate a model we're familiar with (physical media) by imposing absurdities like DRM.
NFTs are also an absurd way of trying to solve the same problem.
The issue we wrestle with is mistaking "ownership" with a access.
I can own a physical book, but I do not own the content of the book, I've paid for access to that content and the book is the medium.
Digital assets are the same, I don't own them, they are a form of access to content that someone else owns, and has granted me an either implicit or explicit license to use.
I think this is the concept of ownership that needs to be revised.
Rather than a mp3 being treated, and thought of, like a book - it should be thought of more as a movie ticket. Something that grants me access to content within the limits defined by the content owner.
I'm trying to point out that this distinction (ownership as distinct from access) leads towards a capture of the digital advantage by people with better leverage.
moreover, I disagree that if I own a book I do not own the contents of it. the mindset that I don't seems too close to saying that I can know things (well understood learned concepts) but still somehow not own them.
This in my view is like a 'hook' which pulls towards the reality that somebody else owns the contents of my own mind, hence that I do not own that part of myself. I hope you see where I'm going with this and why I find your posture troubling.
It's only a few short (conceptual) steps from doing away with individual freedom for the sake of what?
ZipCar, et. al.
> And your house?
AirBnB
> Let's not quibble about the particulars of me ever giving them back.
Symmetry.
Granting overlords the power of ownership, reducing individuals to renters that must comply with the whims of the property masters, is not a path to increased liberty.
Sure. I mean, I'm not an economist nor a sociologist, I bet there's some nuance to that, eh?
> Granting overlords the power of ownership, reducing individuals to renters that must comply with the whims of the property masters
Peasants and serfs. In re: technology I talk about Morlocks and Eloi. Yeah I think that's a lousy way to structure society.
The original point that you replied to was, "ownership is a concept in dire need of revision" and it sounds to me like that's where you're coming from too?
If only we held all myths to such high esteem as we societally hold ownership.
but to do that without any reasonable social support nets is absurd
if we take that
> The only way to truly own something, is to either share it or destroy it.
could I argue that then, we would be taking ownership of the concept of ownership??
ahahha... I think this is kind of funny. And I'd admit that it's not very helpful to the goal of revising the very concept of ownership.
my own parent comment is already controversial with many replies and exactly 0 points (at the time of this response)